Company report
Summary Results
Newmont Mining is the highest performing company for two areas: Business Conduct and Environmental Responsibility. In Business Conduct, Newmont Mining’s performance stems largely from its formal commitments on business ethics, anti-bribery and corruption, and transparency of mineral revenues. In Environmental Responsibility, Newmont Mining’s performance reflects its attention to a number of different issues. For example, the company shows evidence of assessing and addressing the potential implications of climate change for its operations and its impacts on communities, workers and the environment. The company also systematically tracks and reviews its performance on biodiversity management.
Newmont Mining achieves one of the three strongest results for Economic Development and Community Wellbeing. In Economic Development, the company’s best performances relate to its systematic approach to developing procurement opportunities for producing country suppliers at the national level (as well as at the local level). In Community Wellbeing, the company demonstrates systematic action on a number of topics including human rights, and stakeholder engagement including with ASM communities. Finally, Newmont Mining is one of the five strongest performers for Lifecycle Management and one of the ten strongest for Working Conditions.
On the other hand, Newmont Mining’s overall results are limited by a lack of evidence on a number of specific issues across a range of areas. For example, no evidence was found of the company having systems in place to apply socio-economic and environmental criteria during investment decision-making processes, or to address the specific health and safety needs of women workers.
The maximum value of 1.000 represents the aggregation of best scores achieved for all indicators in a given thematic area, taking into account all companies’ results. As the aggregate best score varies from one area to another, these charts cannot be used to compare company performances across different areas.
All company results are based on public domain data that have been sourced by RMI analysts or provided by companies. In the case of a few companies, very little information was available. It is important to note that a low score may only reflect a lack of relevant information in the company’s publicly available documentation.
Relative company performance
Commitment (11 indicators)
Action (41 indicators)
Effectiveness (21 indicators)
Indicator-by-indicator results
Economic Development
A.01 National and Regional Socio-Economic Development Planning
A.02 Procurement
A.03 Capacity Building
A.04 Enhancing the National Skills Base
Selected Mine sites results
Mine sites individually assessed but not included
in the overall company score
| Mine Site Name | Local Procurement (score /6.00) | Local Employment (score /6.00) | Community grievance mechanism (score /6.00) | Workers grievance mechanism (score /6.00) | Water quality and quantity (score /6.00) | Biodiversity management (score /6.00) | Mine site (score /6.00) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ahafo | 2 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2.33 |
| Akyem | 2 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2.33 |
| Merian | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1.50 |
| Yanacocha | 6 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3.33 |
List of all mine sites
| Mine Site Name | Aliases | Country | Company's share (%) | Products | Mining types |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ahafo | Ghana | 100 | Gold | Open-pit | |
| Akyem | Ghana | 100 | Gold | Open-pit | |
| Boddington | Australia | 100 | Gold, Copper | Open-pit | |
| Carlin Trend | Emigrant, Gold Quarry, Silverstar, Goldstar, Leeville, Chukar, Pete Bajo, Exodus, Capstone, Bootstrap, Genesis, Maggie Creek, Tusc | USA | 100 | Gold | Open-pit, Underground |
| Cripple Creek & Victor | USA | 100 | Gold | Open-pit | |
| Kalgoorlie (Newmont Mining)* | Super Pit, Mt Charlotte | Australia | 50 | Gold | Open-pit |
| Long Canyon | USA | 100 | Gold | Open-pit | |
| Merian | Suriname | 75 | Gold | Open-pit | |
| Phoenix | Lone Tree | USA | 100 | Gold, Copper | Open-pit |
| Tanami | Australia | 100 | Gold | Underground | |
| Turquoise Ridge Joint Venture (Newmont Mining)* | USA | 25 | Gold | Underground | |
| Twin Creeks | USA | 100 | Gold | Open-pit | |
| Yanacocha | San José, La Quinua, Cerro Yanacocha, Carachugo, Maqui-Maqui | Peru | 51.35 | Gold, Silver | Open-pit |
Closed mine sites (controlled assets under care & maintenance, closure or post-closure management)
| Mine Site Name | Aliases | Country | Company's share (%) | Products | Mining types | Year of closure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Con Gold | Canada | 100 | Gold | Underground | 2003 | |
| Giant | Canada | 100 | Gold | Underground | 2004 | |
| Kinsley Mountain | USA | 78 | Gold | Open-pit | 1999 | |
| Mesel | Minahasa, Leon, Nibong | Indonesia | 80 | Gold | Open-pit | 2004 |
| Midnite | USA | 51 | Uranium Oxide | Open-pit | 1981 | |
| Mule Canyon | USA | 100 | Gold | Open-pit | 1999 | |
| Rosebud | USA | 50 | Gold, Silver | Underground | 2000 | |
| San Luis | Battle Mountain | USA | 100 | Gold | Open-pit | 1994 |
| Woodcutters | Australia | 100 | Lead, Zinc | Open-pit, Underground | 1999 |
Assets sold during the assessment period
| Mine Site Name | Aliases | Country | Products | Mining types |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Batu-Hijau | Indonesia | Copper, Gold | Open-pit | |
| Waihi | Martha Hill | New Zealand | Gold, Silver | Open-pit |
Main Shareholders
| As of: 09/02/2018 | Shares (%) |
|---|---|
| The Vanguard Group, Inc. | 10.28 |
| BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. | 6.54 |
| Van Eck Associates Corporation | 4.99 |
| State Street Global Advisors (US) | 4.91 |
| BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Ltd. | 4.36 |
| Carmignac Gestion | 2.88 |
| T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. | 2.49 |
| Flossbach & von Storch AG | 1.59 |
| Northern Trust Investments, Inc. | 1.18 |
| The Boston Company Asset Management, LLC | 1.16 |
| Fidelity Management & Research Company | 1.16 |
| Geode Capital Management, L.L.C. | 1.12 |
| M & G Investment Management Ltd. | 0.99 |
| APG Asset Management | 0.95 |
| Schweizerische Nationalbank | 0.89 |
Known Subsidiaries
| As of: 31/01/2018 | Country |
|---|---|
| Battle Mountain Resources Inc. | USA |
| Con Exploration Ltd. | Canada |
| Cripple Creek & Victor Gold Mining Company LLC | USA |
| Dawn Mining Company LLC | USA |
| Elko Land and Livestock Company | USA |
| ELLC Grazing Membership LLC | USA |
| EMH (BVI) Inc | British Virgin Islands |
| Empresa Minera Maria SRL | Bolivia |
| Euronimba Liberia Limited | Liberia |
| Euronimba Limited | Jersey |
| Euronimba UK Limited | UK |
| Fronteer Development LLC | USA |
| Fronteer Development (USA) LLC | USA |
| Fronteer Royalty LLC | USA |
| GCGC LLC | USA |
Known Tax Jurisdictions
| Argentina | Armenia | Australia | Bermuda | Bolivia | British Virgin Islands |
| Canada | Chile | France | Ghana | Guinea | Guyana |
| Haiti | Honduras | Indonesia | Jersey | Liberia | Malaysia |
| Mexico | Netherlands | Papua New Guinea | Peru | Solomon Islands | Suriname |
| UK | USA |
Recent involvements in Investor/State investment disputes (since 2014)
| Case Date | Case number | Case description | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | ARB/14/15 | Nusa Tenggara Partnership B.V. and PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara vs. Republic of Indonesia (Copper and gold mining project) | Concluded |
Disclaimer
The findings, conclusions and interpretations within this 2018 Responsible Mining Index (RMI) report do not necessarily represent the views of funders, trustees, and employees of the Responsible Mining Foundation, and others who participated in consultations and as advisors to the report.
This report is intended to be for information purposes only and is not intended as promotional material in any respect. The report is not intended to provide accounting, legal, tax or investment advice or recommendations, neither is it intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument. In order to fully understand the methodology of the 2018 Responsible Mining Index, the respective sections on the website should be consulted.
The RMI seeks evidence of companies’ policies and practices on economic, environmental, social and governance (EESG) issues, but does not seek to measure the actual outcomes achieved on EESG issues. Results are based only on evidence sourced from the public domain or provided by companies as open data. Whilst this information is believed to be reliable, no guarantee can be given that it is accurate or complete, nor does it preclude the possibility that policies and practices may exist, but which the RMI has not been able to consider for purposes of assessment. In this respect, the results of the low-scoring companies do not necessarily reflect a lack of relevant policies and practices; as they may be due to a lack of public reporting by the companies, limitations in accessing information, and/or any difficulties in accessing the RMI company portal.
It should be noted that, prior to publication, all companies in the Index were invited to check the factual accuracy of the contextual data and evidence upon which the Index is based and to review company information in the RMI document library.
Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of translations, the English language version should be taken as the definitive version. The RMI reserves the right to publish corrigenda on its web page, and readers of the 2018 RMI report should consult the web page for corrections or clarifications https://www.responsibleminingindex.org.